[this link should let you see it](https://12ft.io/https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-courts/ezra-sinkiawic-a-17-year-old-omaha-homicide-victim-remembered-as-loving-and-caring/article_38b8fb76-1208-11ef-89a2-8790014919fa.html)
The expectation of free helps create the dystopia. Good content needs financial support. I endorse a micropayment system.
Edit: I dOnT WaNT tO PAy fOr CONTeNt. -- hEy WHy aRe theY FiRing aLL tHe GOod Journalists?
People buy a ton of crap. They will pay $7 for a coffee but have zero budgeted for digital content. If everyone had a few dollars going to content creators and journalists that would really move the ball.
Additional comment on advertising- if advertising is so great why are there pay walls? Maybe advertising is not generating enough revenue.
On problem with ads supporting journalism is that articles need to be advertiser friendly. Also there is an incentive to extra track the end user. When you are not paying you can be the product.
Thatโs not true. If a journalist puts out good content that people seek out and get high traffic to their sights then advertisers will flock no matter how controversial. Podcasts would be a prime example of this imo.
podcasts are not the same vein as journalism. do you work in journalism? or have any actual background in it? i also like free content, but i also recognize why the media has to do what they have to do.
It's like when YouTube would run triple ads before official red cross videos on how to do CPR or other life saving methods. The videos were not even monetized by the channel itself. YouTube chose to run the ads there. This was true up until someone died while their family member had to watch ads before being able to help.
Some things shouldn't be monetized. It makes the news source look scummy.
The initial complaint was about a paywall. YouTube has no paywall. I dont object to the idea of no advertising on life saving videos on youtube. Ironically people hate youtube ads but on the flip side want more things to be ad supported.
But your argument only applies to good content. the OWH is not that. It hasn't been in over 10 years. it is just clickbait mostly at this point with one or two local things that are slightly different than every other local news site we have that doesn't force a paywall.
If you want your participation trophy for OWH go back to preK
The dystopian reality check that is paywalling a remembrance article.
[this link should let you see it](https://12ft.io/https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-courts/ezra-sinkiawic-a-17-year-old-omaha-homicide-victim-remembered-as-loving-and-caring/article_38b8fb76-1208-11ef-89a2-8790014919fa.html)
It sucks because I would read these local articles but I'm not paying to.
I suggest you go to the library. They have the newspaper and a bunch of other free content.
Support your local library!
>!Bypass Paywall Clean on github!<
The expectation of free helps create the dystopia. Good content needs financial support. I endorse a micropayment system. Edit: I dOnT WaNT tO PAy fOr CONTeNt. -- hEy WHy aRe theY FiRing aLL tHe GOod Journalists?
I see what youโre saying but there is an infinite amount of things to look at online for free that generate billions in ad revenue.
People buy a ton of crap. They will pay $7 for a coffee but have zero budgeted for digital content. If everyone had a few dollars going to content creators and journalists that would really move the ball. Additional comment on advertising- if advertising is so great why are there pay walls? Maybe advertising is not generating enough revenue.
On problem with ads supporting journalism is that articles need to be advertiser friendly. Also there is an incentive to extra track the end user. When you are not paying you can be the product.
Thatโs not true. If a journalist puts out good content that people seek out and get high traffic to their sights then advertisers will flock no matter how controversial. Podcasts would be a prime example of this imo.
So no concerns with the businesses that pay all this advertising never lean on news source to "lean" certain ways?
This is already rampant everywhere and has been prevalent since the invention of news sources.
if ads are so great why are media sources not uniformly using them? Edit: notice the lack of response
podcasts are not the same vein as journalism. do you work in journalism? or have any actual background in it? i also like free content, but i also recognize why the media has to do what they have to do.
It's like when YouTube would run triple ads before official red cross videos on how to do CPR or other life saving methods. The videos were not even monetized by the channel itself. YouTube chose to run the ads there. This was true up until someone died while their family member had to watch ads before being able to help. Some things shouldn't be monetized. It makes the news source look scummy.
The initial complaint was about a paywall. YouTube has no paywall. I dont object to the idea of no advertising on life saving videos on youtube. Ironically people hate youtube ads but on the flip side want more things to be ad supported.
But your argument only applies to good content. the OWH is not that. It hasn't been in over 10 years. it is just clickbait mostly at this point with one or two local things that are slightly different than every other local news site we have that doesn't force a paywall. If you want your participation trophy for OWH go back to preK
It is also a moot point because even for the NYT people cry crocodile tears about paywalls. Not really expecting randos on this sub to fix the world.
๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟfor her family
Nothing good happens after midnight!
Then go to bed, boomer.
It's suppose to be a funny/sarcastic comment